Who's gonna be the General Manager?

[smg58]

Centerfield wrote: I mean, look at this lineup. 1. Nimmo - CF 2. McNeil - 2B 3. Conforto LF 4. Bruce - RF 5. Frazier - 3B 6. Smith - 1B 7. Rosario - SS 8. Plawecki - C In this lineup, the top 3 are arguably good. Conforto is legimately good. Good track record, All-Star caliber player. Nimmo was great, but only has 1 year under his belt. And McNeil could be great but only has 225 career ABs. After that you have 5 guys who failed to reach .700 in OPS. Five guys with an OPS in the .600's. On what planet is that a good lineup?

Keeping with my theme: It's reasonable to gamble that Bruce, Frazier, and Smith will improve, at least a little. It's risky to gamble that the light switch will click on with Rosario, but the upside is there. It's reasonable to gamble that McNeil will be pretty good. And that still leaves us quite a bit short.

[Guest 41Forever]

I thought Brody handled himself well. "Do you have a good everyday line-up?" He gave the best answer -- "Yes, and we're going to build on that foundation." I disagree with you here. I don't think this is a good answer, and certainly not the best answer. The best answer cannot be an answer that is demonstrably false. What is a good lineup? I think generally the top ten are "good". The middle ten are "average", and the bottom ten are "bad". The Mets were 23rd in runs scored last season. They were bad. Even if you take a more binary approach and say the top 15 are good, and the bottom 15 are bad, the Mets are still bad. You can't be in the bottom third of your pool and be considered good. When you say something is good, when it is clearly not, it undermines your credibility. This makes you come across either as a liar or foolish. Better answers acknowledge a weakness but stress the work being done to address that weakness. And they're easy. Even if you don't want to commit to big upgrades. "Do we have a good lineup today? I don't think we have a game today Mike. Ask me that question in March. If the answer is no, then I haven't done my job." "Good lineup? Potentially good. I know the results are not there, but we have some pieces that we think are ready to arrive in 2019. We saw a little of that in the second half last year. We have others that we know can bounce back, and we are working to add pieces to bring that ceiling even higher. So yes, I'm very excited about the potential of this lineup." (I feel like this would have been Sandy's answer) "No, but I think a lot of teams don't have a good lineup in November. We know we need to score more runs in 2019. Some of that will happen organically as some of our young hitters come into their own. We have others that will revert back to form. 2018 Jay Bruce wasn't a good hitter. 2019 Jay Bruce could be an all-star. So no, we're not good today, but I think we'll be good in 2019, and I think many of the key pieces of that lineup are already within the organization." Or, if you're actually committed to spending money and improving: "No, not today. But that's why they hired me Mike. If we were already good, they could have hired you."

I disagree with you in that it’s a radio interview and not a print or web interview, where you have more space to play with. If read out loud, your answer might be as long as the entire exchange. My experience with radio is that you have to reply in short sound bites. Francesca would cut him off a third of the way through that — in part because he likes to hear himself talk. (This is infotainment and he’s the star.)

So in that space he has to talk up the guys he has and say the obvious, that he has work to do.

Most impressive to me was that he didn’t take the bait. Francesca tried to get under his skin there and BVW held his own. He’s a confrontational host. Not only did BVW hold his ground well, he pushed back and even seemed to catch Francesca off guard - without being confrontational himself.

If I were doing his media training, i’d say he did well.

[Centerfield]

To clarify, each of those paragraphs was intended as a separate answer. (not one long one)

I don't know anything about media training, so I defer to you on that ground.

But if I were his attorney I'd advise him to avoid making false or preposterous statements easily refuted during cross.

[Ceetar]

The Mets, and really anyone, should stop giving Francesa the time of day. He's not a 'must stop' on any interview tour. I get Brodie's probably just doing everything at this point, but let's not make that a routine.

does WFAN still do weekly spots with both managers? If they do, this certainly proves my point of it being a worthless stop, I don't think I've heard a single "Collins/Callaway said on WFAN today that.." in years.

[HahnSolo]

FAN couldn't get Mets once they were no longer the flagship. Now that they're back under the same corporation (if not the same station) they're allowed back on FAN.

[Fman99]

It'd be awfully tough for me to survive a Francessa interview without calling him a "sopping wet country (edit word for profanity/brevity)." But this is why I probably didn't survive the preliminary round of GM interviews.

[Edgy MD]

41Forever wrote: So he just dealt with the worst media guy in New York and held his own.

Hannity got fired?

[Centerfield]

Omar Minaya is set to become the top advisor for Brodie.

Cynical Take: Omar is back at GM with a really expensive spokesman.

[bmfc1]

[tweet:33ktcxjv]

[/tweet:33ktcxjv]
What's the point of having a new GM if you have the same voices advising him?

[Benjamin Grimm]

Maybe the same advisers, but a different decision maker.

And anyway, keeping the old GM wasn't an option.

[Guest 41Forever]

I think it makes sense for someone to surround himself with good people.

[Centerfield]

41Forever wrote: I think it makes sense for someone to surround himself with good people.

Yeah, and if scouting and development are a weakness for Van Wagenen, then Omar's a good choice. I just don't want him anywhere near the decision process when it comes to making trades etc. I agree that making a change simply for the sake of making a change is not necessary. Not sure how smart or useful Ricco or Ricciardi are. Although wasn't Ricciardi once a GM of Toronto? I guess that experience might be helpful.

[Ceetar]

All Puma is saying here is that Omar is staying. That's fine and expected.

Does anyone really think there is a functional difference between 'special assistant' and 'top advisor'?

[Centerfield]

I believe he is saying, for the first time, that there is a hierarchy among the three. And Minaya is at the top of it.

[MFS62]

Ceetar wrote: All Puma is saying here is that Omar is staying. That's fine and expected. Does anyone really think there is a functional difference between 'special assistant' and 'top advisor'?

In many organizations, top advisor comes up with (or verifies) philosophy, ideas or direction and a special assistant actually does some work.

Later

[Ceetar]

Centerfield wrote: I believe he is saying, for the first time, that there is a hierarchy among the three. And Minaya is at the top of it.

If he is, he's an idiot and cites no reasoning/sources. Where's the info for the title change?

Besides, all three are kinda focusing in different places, so to say one is 'on top' is semantics at best. And I mean, of the three Minaya IS the one that's been the most successful, so you'd kinda think that anyway.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I like how the Mets hired a GM who's supposedly gonna recuse himself from future negotiations with deGrom and Syndergaard, perhaps the most critical contract talks that are gonna come up near term -- to avoid conflicts of interest. Anybody who believes that horseshit about the recusing is a gullible fucking idiot. And if it turns out to be the truth, then the Mets owners are even bigger incompetent idiots than I ever imagined.

[batmagadanleadoff]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I like how the Mets hired a GM who's supposedly gonna recuse himself from future negotiations with deGrom and Syndergaard, perhaps the most critical contract talks that are gonna come up near term -- to avoid conflicts of interest. Anybody who believes that horseshit about the recusing is a gullible fucking idiot. And if it turns out to be the truth, then the Mets owners are even bigger incompetent idiots than I ever imagined.

It's mind boggling that BVW is even allowed to take the GM position. A lawyer would almost never be allowed to take on a case against a former client. But this is the world we live in where first count daughter Ivanka can be an unqualified top adviser to her daddy president while all the while retaining control of her vast business interests. Conflicts of interest are for the little people.

[Ceetar]

Van Wagenen doesn't have any conflict of interest. The risk is one of spoiled confidences, trusted personal information that may have now be in the teams hand that otherwise wouldn't have, but we don't even know if there's much of that or what possible consequences it could have. Maybe he knows deGrom really really loves NY and has told him he'll take a hometown discount, and that'll cost him $30 million or something.

Would a lawyer who's helped a person sue his employer later be allowed to become an executive at that same company? Are there legal grounds that prevent that? That's probably the parallel.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ceetar wrote: Van Wagenen doesn't have any conflict of interest. The risk is one of spoiled confidences, trusted personal information that may have now be in the teams hand that otherwise wouldn't have, but we don't even know if there's much of that or what possible consequences it could have. Maybe he knows deGrom really really loves NY and has told him he'll take a hometown discount, and that'll cost him $30 million or something. Would a lawyer who's helped a person sue his employer later be allowed to become an executive at that same company? Are there legal grounds that prevent that? That's probably the parallel.

I'm not even gonna bother to respond. Nope. Just not gonna do it.

[Ceetar]

because you haven't even attempted to engage in critical thinking on the topic.

[Frayed Knot]

The problem isn't with Minaya staying (or even Ricco or Riccardi) it's if he/they are allowed or encouraged to go directly to the Wilpons rather than through Van Wagenen.
You wouldn't think they'd do that after paying him (whatever?) to coax him out of his lucrative business, but yaneverknow.

[Guest 41Forever]

John Harper thinks one of BVW's early hires should be a more experienced bench coach, like Jim Riggleman.

https://www.sny.tv/mets/news/mets-gm-brodie-van-wagenen-should-hire-new-bench-coach-like-jim-riggleman/300064304

[Centerfield]

Ceetar wrote: Van Wagenen doesn't have any conflict of interest. The risk is one of spoiled confidences, trusted personal information that may have now be in the teams hand that otherwise wouldn't have, but we don't even know if there's much of that or what possible consequences it could have. Maybe he knows deGrom really really loves NY and has told him he'll take a hometown discount, and that'll cost him $30 million or something. Would a lawyer who's helped a person sue his employer later be allowed to become an executive at that same company? Are there legal grounds that prevent that? That's probably the parallel.

Trust me when I say this. You could not be any more wrong.

[Ceetar]

I figure there's little chance Van Wagenen left all the money on the table to not be 'the man'.

Is Minaya going to get shot down by Brodie and then run whining to Jeff and try to sway him? That seems extremely dysfunctional and out of character as well.

Centerfield wrote: Ceetar wrote: Van Wagenen doesn't have any conflict of interest. The risk is one of spoiled confidences, trusted personal information that may have now be in the teams hand that otherwise wouldn't have, but we don't even know if there's much of that or what possible consequences it could have. Maybe he knows deGrom really really loves NY and has told him he'll take a hometown discount, and that'll cost him $30 million or something. Would a lawyer who's helped a person sue his employer later be allowed to become an executive at that same company? Are there legal grounds that prevent that? That's probably the parallel. Trust me when I say this. You could not be any more wrong.

"I'm not going to tell you why, you're just wrong."

can we please try critical thinking and facts? it'd be nice.

[Benjamin Grimm]

It seems pretty clear that if someone has confidential information about a client, and then switches to the other side, that would be a conflict of interest.

What if you're on trial, and your defense attorney joins the prosecution? Is that not a conflict of interest? The stakes here are less dramatic, but I think they're similar in concept.

[Ceetar]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: It seems pretty clear that if someone has confidential information about a client, and then switches to the other side, that would be a conflict of interest. What if you're on trial, and your defense attorney joins the prosecution? Is that not a conflict of interest? The stakes here are less dramatic, but I think they're similar in concept.

No, it's not. What benefit does the attorney gain from you walking?? What personal gain does Van Wagenen gain if deGrom 'wins' (subjective!) a contract negotiation?

None. They've divested themselves of that previous _interest_ there is no conflict. Wagenen makes no additional commission by now giving deGrom even more money.

It's the wrong term.

[Benjamin Grimm]

It's not about "benefit" to Van Wagenen. It's about harm to deGrom and the others. It's about information given in confidence potentially being used against them.

[Ceetar]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: It's not about "benefit" to Van Wagenen. It's about harm to deGrom and the others. It's about information given in confidence potentially being used against them.

Yes, that's exactly what I said. And that's not conflict of interest. conflict of interest implies benefit to Van Wagenen.

[Centerfield]

This is such a stupid conversation. Before you definitively say it's not a conflict of interest, look up what it means and check first.

And you're the one asking for critical thinking?

deGrom tells BVW confidential information since BVW is his agent. How much he'll take. His preferences. Concerns over a nagging injury, etc. deGrom can freely tell him because BVW is his fiduciary. Their interests are aligned. They want deGrom to make as much money as possible.

BVW is not allowed to then go to the other side and negotiate against deGrom. He learned valuable information about deGrom in his role as his fiduciary.

BVW, in his new role as Mets GM is looking to drive the price down. He can use the confidential information against deGrom, and to his own benefit, which is to drive the price down.

This is such a basic concept it makes me angry to have to explain it.

You know what I do for a living. Do you really think you understand conflicts of interest better than me?